Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

[cobweb]

i think the statistics in the U.K show that Labradors attack the most people, because they are the most widespread breed. No, i don't have a link, that is just from memory.

I believe that part of the problem with the U.S.A's high kill rate/low adoption rate is just that that's the way it's been so far, maybe it could change if more shelters actively pushed adoption with a positive spin?. Why does is work here but can't work there?.

Also, even 'poor' people can still look after a dog to the point of giving the dog food and shelter, if they can't even do that then they can't have a dog, or a child........

[Zero]

Sure, no-kill shelters exist, but that doesn't prove they work looking at the big picture. As an analogy, if I swipe my finger over the roof of my car and then show you the dirt, does that prove my car is now clean?

Would you please explain to me mathematically how in a country like mine, with a 28% dog/ 24% cat annual shelter adoption rate, how they (no kill shelters) would do anything other than fill to peek capacity in a short time and then cease to function, or do you propose to give them unlimited resources giving them infinite vacancy expansion capability? That would work.

The "no kill" movement is one part of what we should be aiming for, it is one piece of the bigger picture along with education, clamping down on breeders and spay/neutering, it's hardly going to happen overnight is it?

Sure, as long as things go on the way they are there will be animals locked in cages for a long time or simply euthanized, neither of these is a good thing, but moving towards making shelters and "rescue" agencies more active with education and getting out into the community is important in my opinion.

The communities need to understand things better and get on side with it rather than just watching Peta do the "dirty work" of society by just killing large amounts of animals.

Can one rehome a dog that's murdered a child and is dangerously aggressive from years of torture and abuse? is half dead? was hit by a car and is paralyzed? is terminally ill or infectious? These are the ones PeTA bravely deals with and actively seeks out, the cute, cuddly, adoptable ones they turn away (for the most part) and refer them to other other local high traffic shelters. But if you'd rather believe the lies of Rick Berman and his multi-million dollar web sites and billboards, funded by the likes of McDonald's and KFC, go right ahead.
----
To all:

Learn more here about some "no-kill shelters".

I don't believe everything that is on those websites however the data in that table I put up is directly from the records filed by Peta with the state of Virginia. You can check it yourself (I probably should have clarified that in my post).

[pat sommer]

A friend took home a dog found wandering on the beach because she knew that if she didn't try rehoming him herself, he would be picked up and killed, period. Many dogs get dumped this way. My father always took in dogs found on highways (sore paws from chasing their owners car).

There is such a tremendous number of dumped animals. If we did have no kill shelters at this point before all areas are covered by mandatory Spay/Neuter and before damn pet shops are driven out of business, then guess how easy it would be to turn in last year's must-have?

Overheard: "I am so over having dogs"

[pat sommer]

No prize for guessing which breed tops the list in fatal dog attacks

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1007511

[snivelingchild]

That doesn't account for the total number of each breed. Pits are everywhere. What % of pits are involved in fatal attacks vs. other breeds?

[horselesspaul]

No prize for guessing which breed tops the list in fatal dog attacks

http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1007511

Where is the data from and where is it for? I cannot see any attribution.

[pat sommer]

Fatalities during 1997 and 1998—During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died as the result of dog bite attacks (18 people in 1997 and 9 in 1998). Of 27 human DBRF, 19 (70%) were children (1 was ≤30 days old, 3 were between 7 and 11 months old, 9 were between 1 and 4 years old, and 6 were between 5 and 11 years old), and 8 were adults (ages 17, 44, 64, 70, 73, 75, 75, and 87). Approximately half (n = 15 [56%]) of the human DBRF were male. Five (19%) deaths involved unrestrained dogs off the owners’ property, 18 (67%) involved unrestrained dogs on the owners’ property, 3 (11%) involved restrained dogs on the owners’ property, and 1 (4%) involved a restrained dog off the owner’s property. Eighteen (67%) deaths involved 1 dog, 5 (19%) involved 2 dogs, and 4 (15%) involved 3 dogs. Sixty percent of attacks by unrestrained dogs off the owners’ property involved more than 1 dog. Fatal attacks were reported from 17 states (California [4 deaths]; Georgia and North Carolina [3 each]; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin [2 each]; and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee [1 each]). Some breed information was reported for all 27 attacks. As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, fol- lowed by pit bull-type dogs (Table 1). Together, these 2 breeds were involved in approximately 60% of human deaths.

Source

• National Center for Injury and Prevention Control

[horselesspaul]

Thanks.

[pat sommer]

And on a feminist note, this was recently shared with me:

http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/17 Moving past the Welfare-Abolition Impasse by Pattrice Jones

Unfortunately, only as pdf to download so here is a paragraph to allow you all to judge whether it's relevant and worth the trouble

"It is perhaps no accident that the three of us are women* who have taken serious actions such as hunt-sabotage, vivisection laboratory infiltration, and open rescue while the most mocking condemnations of welfare reforms have been inspired by the writings of a male scholar who argues from an abstract ethical perspective not rooted in engagement with actual animals. Women tend to work from what feminist scholars have called an "ethics of care" while men are sometimes dismissive of arguments falling outside of abstract systems of rules. Some feminists have identified that preference for abstraction as an element of speciesism and sexism. Opponents of animal welfare should take care to respect different methods of moral reasoning, being especially careful to not mock women for expressing and acting on their concern for the actual experiences of existing animals."

* Ingrid Newkirk- Peta, Karen Davis- United Poultry Concerns, Pattrice Jones- Eastern Shore Animal Sanctuary and Ed Center

[horselesspaul]

And on a feminist note, this was recently shared with me:

http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/17 Moving past the Welfare-Abolition Impasse by Pattrice Jones

Unfortunately, only as pdf to download so here is a paragraph to allow you all to judge whether it's relevant and worth the trouble

"It is perhaps no accident that the three of us are women* who have taken serious actions such as hunt-sabotage, vivisection laboratory infiltration, "
* Ingrid Newkirk- Peta, Karen Davis- United Poultry Concerns, Pattrice Jones- Eastern Shore Animal Sanctuary and Ed Center

Yes, but do they get their bits out as well?
x

[pat sommer]

[Mahk]

The "no kill" movement is one part of what we should be aiming for, it is one piece of the bigger picture along with education, clamping down on breeders and spay/neutering, it's hardly going to happen overnight is it?

Sure, as long as things go on the way they are there will be animals locked in cages for a long time or simply euthanized, neither of these is a good thing, but moving towards making shelters and "rescue" agencies more active with education and getting out into the community is important in my opinion.

The communities need to understand things better and get on side with it rather than just watching Peta do the "dirty work" of society by just killing large amounts of animals.

This is exactly PeTA's stance as well, despite how their detractors such as Rick Berman portray them. PeTA spends millions of dollars on exactly what you've outlined here in the way of pamphlets, bilboards, posters, protests, education programs etc.

Euthanasia is indeed "dirty work" but in the emergency situation my country is in it is a necessary evil compared to the animals dying slow, painful, lingering deaths of cold/starvation/dehydration etc. on the streets and under trash bins (dumpsters).

Another reason PeTA is focused on mostly euthanasia and has such a high kill ratio is because they know that if other local area animal control facilities get their hands on the strays instead, the methods they may use aren't as quick and painless as an injection of sodium barbitol into the animal's leg, PeTA's exclusive method. Other local area methods include suffocation, gas chambers, gun fire , and electrocution. This is why they seek out the sickly, beaten up, half dead, and not very adoptable dogs and cats as their first priority, to rescue them from this terrible fate.

"...Until dog and cat overpopulation is brought under control through spaying and neutering, we must prevent the suffering of unwanted animals in the most responsible and humane way possible. Euthanasia, performed properly, is often the most compassionate option..."

"Injections into the hearts of conscious animals are not acceptable. Inhalants, decompression, drowning, electrocution, shooting, and other methods are also unacceptable because they rarely provide an instant death and cause suffering before death occurs.

Some drugs can cause discomfort if injected too quickly or at too high a dose, and some, such as strychnine, can cause animals to experience violent convulsions, muscle contractions, or cardiac arrest.

Nitrous oxide, halothane, and carbon monoxide gases can be expensive and unreliable and can cause irritation or excitability in animals. Carbon monoxide poisoning causes animals to suffer horribly while they are slowly suffocated. They often scream and go into convulsions while struggling for air. Carbon monoxide poisoning has been outlawed in California, Tennessee, Maryland, and Rhode Island but is still used in many animal shelters throughout the U.S.

The physical methods used to kill animals in shelters include shooting, electrocution, and decompression. The obvious problem with shooting is the potential for extreme pain if the person handling the gun is not competent, if the animal is struggling, or if the bullet is deflected and the animal survives. Electrocution can be extremely painful and traumatic and doesn’t always work..."

PeTA

[Sarabi]

What is involved in "mainstream" culture? Sex. Sex sells. Like it or not, sex does sell. Of course it would be nice if everyone would be a feminist and do their own research and check out organizations that are more "moral". But they aren't, and they won't.

What is involved in "mainstream" culture? Meat. Meat sells. Like it or not, meat does sell. Of course it would be nice if everyone would be a vegan and do their own research and check out organizations that are more "moral". But they aren't, and they won't.

I love your logic. Just love it. Looks like no one's going vegan.

[horselesspaul]

What an excellent analogy Sarabi.

[Zero]

This is exactly PeTA's stance as well, despite how their detractors such as Rick Berman portray them. PeTA spends millions of dollars on exactly what you've outlined here in the way of pamphlets, bilboards, posters, protests, education programs etc.

Mahk, that might be their stance however they contradict themselves, I have said many times that the educational work they do is good, and that not everything they do is bad.

Still though.... they follow people like Nathan Winograd around pushing their own smear campaign against them. These people are out there educating the communiuty directly by getting the shelters active in the community raising the adoption rate often 10 fold or more, raising awareness about breeders and pet stores and showing that feral cat colonies can live out their natural lives with appointed caretakers, what better approach is there than to get the community to be on your side and understand the issues.

Peta consistently push for mass euthanization in these cases rather than spay/neuter help and education, this seems very at odds with the stance you reference above and the means don't seem to match the ends.

[horselesspaul]

gun fire

Fwiw Mahk, properly applied gun fire is a very efficient and painless death for animals of almost any kind, including humans.

[cobweb]

Fwiw Mahk, properly applied gun fire is a very efficient and painless death for animals of almost any kind, including humans.

i was thinking the same thing (having learned how to shoot when i was younger) - if i was getting killed that'd be my weapon of choice (in the right hands)

[Mahk]

Still though.... they follow people like Nathan Winograd around pushing their own smear campaign against them..

Bull. Please provide evidence PeTA has a smear campaign against him. [Showing PeTA disagrees with his views doesn't prove "a smear campaign", BTW.]

Sure, PeTA thinks that a total conversion to 100% no kill shelters in the US is impossible, at the moment, but this is clearly their longterm goal. This view is shared by myself and the vast majority of the animal overpopulation community here. It is simply, mathematically impossible to address the current crisis otherwise, unless you naively think we'll simply build new shelters with some secret, "unlimited" cash-flow every week, once the current ones fill to capacity. Such places would be efectivly permanent prisons for the unadoptable animals, in their tiny cages, with little daily interaction, as they would be "warehoused" for life. That's a fate arguably worse than death, if you ask me.

PeTA pushes heavily for people to up the current 28%/ 24% adoption rate but until that happens no-kill shelters are a joke, for the US. They should be called "fill to capacity in a matter of weeks and then refuse all new animals, instead letting them die slow, painful, lingering deaths on the streets, facilities" instead. Talk about hypocrisy.

"...Until dog and cat overpopulation is brought under control through spaying and neutering, we must prevent the suffering of unwanted animals in the most responsible and humane way possible. Euthanasia, performed properly, is often the most compassionate option..." -PeTA

These people are out there educating the community directly by getting the shelters active in the community raising the adoption rate often 10 fold or more

10 times? Maybe for one specific community or neighborhood, whatever, but for an entire country? Baloney. Please provide a link that shows this "ten fold" increase claim you speak of, thanks.

[Mahk]

Fwiw Mahk, properly applied gun fire is a very efficient and painless death for animals of almost any kind, including humans.

Then why don't they use that method on terminally ill people in countries that allow legal, human, euthanasia? [besides it being messy]

Does your country allow legal, human, euthanasia for terminally ill people that request it? If they request gun fire do you think it would be provided? Might the person pulling the trigger (for dogs or humans) be a trembling nervous wreck, with poor aim, and have deep psychological damage and traumatic nightmares for the rest of their lives? I'd think that would be quite possible for many.

[horselesspaul]

Chill Mahk.
What I said is still as factually true as it was before you wrote your post.

[Mahk]

I never disagreed with you; gun fire, properly applied, is indeed quick and "painless". My point was that there are good reasons not to use it and using it on humans or dogs seems barbaric in this day and age when a quick shot of sodium phenobarbital, or whatever it's called, correctly administered, will do the trick. That's all.

[cobweb]

sometimes a lethal injection takes ages to work - i don't think there is a 'foolproof' method of murder really.

[Zero]

Bull. Please provide evidence PeTA has a smear campaign against him. [Showing PeTA disagrees with his views doesn't prove "a smear campaign", BTW

It's discussed in his blog.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166&paged=2

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=691

10 times? Maybe for one specific community or neighborhood, whatever, but for an entire country? Baloney. Please provide a link that shows this "ten fold" increase claim you speak of, thanks.

To imply that no kill by definition means filth and hoarding is a cynicism that has only one purpose: to defend those who are failing at saving lives from public criticism and public accountability by paint-ing a picture of the alternative as even darker. The philoso-phical underpinning of the no-kill movement is to put actions behind the words of every shelter's mission statement: "All life is precious." No kill is about valuing animals, which not only means saving lives but means good quality care. By denigrating no kill as akin to animal hoarding, these groups appear to be arguing for nothing more than a nation of shelters firmly grounded in killing - a defeatist mentality that is inherently unethical and antithetical to animal welfare.

But Nachminovitch knows this, so she engaged in subterfuge. If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, which is what she attempted to do. She argued that shelters I am associated with have record rates of animals dying in their kennels as a result of warehousing. This is nonsense. In New York, at a shelter I worked for, deaths in kennels dropped 90 percent after new policies involving cleaning, vaccinating and care policies were implemented. In Reno, Nev., the number of animals being killed and/or getting sick in the shelter has been steadily declining since new no-kill policies were implemented, with adoption rates increasing by as much as 84 percent.

The only example Nachminovitch cited for her flawed proposition where she actually provided any data was for shelters in Los Angeles, of which I have been an ardent critic, have never worked with and which have nothing to do with the policies I advocate. To try to link me with the shelter is the height of obfuscation. It is a lie.

Over the past five years, several animal-control shelters across the United States have embraced not only the no-kill philosophy, but the programs and services that make it pos-sible. As a result, they are achieving unprecedented lifesaving success, saving in excess of 90 percent of all impounded animals. The for-mula for saving the lives of more than 4 million dogs and cats has been discovered. And we should be working fever-ishly to ensure that this formu-la is replicated in every com-munity across this country.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=2008_4679053

Alright maybe something of an exaggerated number when I said 10 fold, but the amount is very reasonable.

I am looking for the information written by Nachminovitch as I am sure I found a link to at least one of the letters previously claiming that Winograd was in league with puppy mills etc.

[Mahk]

Although I have no direct evidence that Nathan Winograd was "invented" by Rick Berman/ CCF with his multi-million dollar McDonalds/KFC funding, I do here provide evidence that he gladly will be interviewed by "them". That speaks volumes to me personally.

"Ceneter for Consumer Freedom" (*cough* Rick Berman) interview of Nathan Winograd.
---

9.6 million (or roughly ten million) animals are euthanized in the US annually according to the American Humane Association. PeTA, in 2007 [the most recent year we have figures for based on the CCF supplied data Zero provided in post #143] was responsible for 1815 of those, or roughly .01% of the total. I just thought to point out PeTA is a drop in the bucket, but Berman's funding is to bad mouth and target PeTA, so the big picture is ignored since he probably cares little about the concept of how can we get America to stop treating animals like disposable toys.

[Zero]

Anyway regardless of "he said she said" I still think Peta could be doing more in communities to work with them promote what is wrong with the current system and how to best remedy it than dressing up like idiots in New York etc, but hey thats just my opinion

[Mahk]

It's discussed in his blog.

I don't consider "blogs", without at least third party, traceable sources which he doesn't provide, as evidence, but thanks.

I agree the nakedness and dressing like animals stuff is silly. I'm not a PeTA supporter on many levels, but CCF/Berman, on the other hand, is my arch-enemy.

[Mahk]

sometimes a lethal injection takes ages to work - i don't think there is a 'foolproof' method of murder really.

And of course with any injection there's always a risk for an infection.

[wendy]

I agree with you Makh. In Belgium the euthanasia rate in shelters for cats is 60% and that is not included the feral cats and abandoned cats who die suffering. And we are a rich country.
It is good to push adoption , but it alone will not change much. Neutering will.

Zero, you are possibly right that PETA could do more, one can always do more, that doesn't mean they don't do their best.

[Zero]

Zero, you are possibly right that PETA could do more, one can always do more, that doesn't mean they don't do their best.

Okay let me just rewrite my last post - They could actually help more people understand the issues and get people onside by working with communities, and focusing on the educational aspects in a positive manner aspects rather than dressing up like assholes and wasting that time energy and money turning people against them.

[Mahk]

They spend millions of dollars annually on TV commercials like this recent one that some networks refused to air, despite it's use of animatronic actors:

[YOUTUBE]qUbQzNXncrI[/YOUTUBE]

Alternate if that one has trouble.

Does this play OK for everyone? When I click on it it plays with many delays and pauses. It was fine the first time I viewed it so maybe it is just my internet connection at the moment, I don't know.

To the best of my knowledge, these are the only TV commercials that air on American TV that push for more spaying and neutering, so in that sense they are doing a lot.

[petunia]

I love your logic. Just love it. Looks like no one's going vegan.

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post. Women have a choice if they want to be "objectified".

As well, some would argue (not myself included) that they aren't being objectified.

[horselesspaul]

I never disagreed with you; gun fire, properly applied, is indeed quick and "painless". My point was that there are good reasons not to use it and using it on humans or dogs seems barbaric in this day and age when a quick shot of sodium phenobarbital, or whatever it's called, correctly administered, will do the trick. That's all.

I get it.
x

[horselesspaul]

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post. Women have a choice if they want to be "objectified".

As well, some would argue (not myself included) that they aren't being objectified.

The objectification is in the eye of the objectifier not the objectified, surely?

[horselesspaul]

CCF/Berman, on the other hand, is my arch-enemy.

They should be worried. Get some!

[petunia]

The objectification is in the eye of the objectifier not the objectified, surely?

I don't really know. I guess I actually believe the opposite: if someone is "objectifying" a woman, or anyone, but the person being objectified does not feel objectified, then it doesn't really exist, I suppose.

[horselesspaul]

Interesting point of view. Put it this way, I think that people seeing PeTA's constant use of naked women reinforces the view that women should first and foremost be judged on their looks and makes it harder for those of us who disagree to gain any credence for any other approach with those who would belittle 51% of the world's population in this, and many other, ways..

[bryzee86]

I don't really know. I guess I actually believe the opposite: if someone is "objectifying" a woman, or anyone, but the person being objectified does not feel objectified, then it doesn't really exist, I suppose.

How about: A person is being held, drugged and immobilised beyond cognition. They do not know they are in this position, then it does not exist?

[Steph]

PETA's INTENT, first and foremost always was, has been and is now, is to help animals. That has been always, the goal. To make people aware of how animals today are being used/abused in every aspect of daily living. From clothing to food, they've been in "our faces" (whether you agree with how they've done so) for around 25 years or so. I am a huge supporter of PETA, always, and will always continue to be so. I don't give a rat's ass about the naked women, whatever will help people stop and take notice (what not, but a naked handsome man or woman, will help sell, have you people not taken a marketing class in college??) Why are you so down with PETA using everything it can in this mass media age where sex is used to sell everything (have you seen the new McDonald ads on tv, wtf?) the INTENT is to help animals, they've done a fine job bringing issues to light in the past 25 years, and I applaud and support them always..

[Steph]

Does Peta have any public document stating what Peta's purpose is?

Yes, here is their mission statement:....

"PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns..." http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp

[Mahk]

Interesting point of view. Put it this way, I think that people seeing PeTA's constant use of naked women reinforces the view that women should first and foremost be judged on their looks and makes it harder for those of us who disagree to gain any credence for any other approach with those who would belittle 51% of the world's population in this, and many other, ways..

I haven't really seen very much of these ads people seem to be taking objection to, but I have seen the one with Alicia Silverstone, a vegan, and I thought it was rather tastefully done. I'm pretty sure they played this on American TV so I'd hardly call this "pornography" but they may have blurred her bottom in the brief long shot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEGSB...eature=related

Does this commercial "objectify women"? Well in a sense I suppose yes, but couldn't the same be said of Botticelli's Birth of Venus or Michaelangelo's David objectifies the male body?

My gripe with the nudity and animal costumes is it seems more juvenile and childish, which keeps people from taking them seriously. But I haven't seen many of their nude things so maybe I'd be more upset if I knew more.

[snivelingchild]

People objectify women whether or not they're wearing clothes. Wearing low cut or tight clothing does not make me an object. Objectification is a kind of thought that a person should be valued for looks alone. Being naked to get attention doesn't do this. It's a shock since we're not used to seeing people naked. It's okay to value a women (or anyone) for their looks. The bad part is thinking the rest of them is worthless.

I can be a flippin feminist AND support nudity, AND the use of sexuality for attention. Sex is a good thing. It's fun. It's fun to flirt with people and make dirty jokes. It's she "shut up woman and make me a pie" part that's bad.

[Mahk]

Sniv, but what do you think of the specific Alicia Silverstone commercial I linked to? Art? Pornography? Other? Effective? Ineffective?

[horselesspaul]

I don't give a rat's ass about the naked women, whatever will help people stop and take notice (what not, but a naked handsome man or woman, will help sell, have you people not taken a marketing class in college??) Why are you so down with PETA using everything it can in this mass media age where sex is used to sell everything (have you seen the new McDonald ads on tv, wtf?) the INTENT is to help animals, they've done a fine job bringing issues to light in the past 25 years, and I applaud and support them always..

Given that you have expressed support for everything PeTA do, do you not see that poorly enacted strategies actually trivialise the plight of animals, as well as the position of women in society? Not all marketing actually works does it? They're not selling hamburgers, they're selling enlightenment.
By the way, I did not take a "marketing class" in college. I was more interested in learning about more complete ways to increase the sum of compassion and love generally than to sell things to people, as it goes.

[horselesspaul]

People objectify women whether or not they're wearing clothes. Wearing low cut or tight clothing does not make me an object. Objectification is a kind of thought that a person should be valued for looks alone. Being naked to get attention doesn't do this. It's a shock since we're not used to seeing people naked. It's okay to value a women (or anyone) for their looks. The bad part is thinking the rest of them is worthless.

I can be a flippin feminist AND support nudity, AND the use of sexuality for attention. Sex is a good thing. It's fun. It's fun to flirt with people and make dirty jokes. It's she "shut up woman and make me a pie" part that's bad.

I agree almost entirely (I wonder how women who feel ugly feel about it..), but it's not aimed at us. The "shut up woman and make the pie" fraternity will not get the point about compassion, I fear.

[horselesspaul]

My gripe with the nudity and animal costumes is it seems more juvenile and childish, which keeps people from taking them seriously.

I hope it has been obvious that this is my main concern but I also feel that using the lowest common denominator to make a point is also counter-productive to the promotion of a higher plain of thought generally.

[Sarabi]

I guess you didn't read the rest of my post. Women have a choice if they want to be "objectified".

As well, some would argue (not myself included) that they aren't being objectified.

I haven't chosen to be objectified. When women intentionally objectify themselves in the mass media, what they are doing is enhancing the objectification of women in general. Where do you think the objectification of women comes from in the first place? It comes from a culture that objectifies them. And it comes from many eons in which men dominated society. What these women are doing is perpetuating that. Women take the opportunities offered to them (supply creates it own demand, if you've studied economics), and objectification happens to be one of them. This does not make it right or wrong, but it simply a fact. But you are arguing that choice makes it acceptable. Think about the choices that animals are offered. If given the choice between being electrically shocked and running headlong into an enslaving crate, they'd probably run headlong into the crate. They made that choice. To me, that says nothing about whether or not I should approve of what is happening to them.

[wendy]

Using naked women does not indicate that they fight a non serious cause. It indicates : Now that we have your attention listen to what we got to say.
And some people may not think further. But I think their tactic reaches a lot more people then saying being serious about the issue, because then people just turn their head an ignore. While now they are drawn in to listen a bit longer.
Their are enough organisation who choose to demonstrate differently. To each their own, they are all an important piece of the movement. And I think talking bad about PETA to non vegans, drags the all movement down.

About feminism I just want to say, I find it very unfeminist to not let woman use their body and show their beauty.
I to like to look at a beautiful man.

[horselesspaul]

While now they are drawn in to listen a bit longer.

Do you have any evidence for this at all?

[horselesspaul]

And I think talking bad about PETA to non vegans, drags the all movement down.

I think they do a good enough job of it themselves, I don't discuss PeTA with non-vegans for that very reason.

[horselesspaul]

About feminism I just want to say, I find it very unfeminist to not let woman use their body and show their beauty.

Of course, if you're reading the posts, no one here is saying otherwise, it's all about context though.